14 years · 3300h — My SB stats show a 27-point win rate gap between Russian and NATO vehicles

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
1

[UPDATE — June 17 2026] Following the discussion in the comments, I’ve revised part of my analysis. The 27-point win rate gap I observed in SB is likely driven primarily by first-spawn Russian CAS (LMUR, Kh-38MT) combined with the Pantsir/BUK-M3 denying NATO’s air response — rather than pure ground vehicle imbalance. RB stats indeed show greater parity at top tier. I’ve also observed personally that in matches without CAS, or with an effective SPAA team on both sides, the advantage becomes much more nuanced. This is therefore more a GSB ruleset problem than a fundamental modelling bias — but it remains a Gaijin problem. The rest of the analysis stands.

I’m not someone who speaks up often. But when enough is enough, it’s enough.

I’ve been playing War Thunder since 2012.

Not “for a long time.” Since the open beta. Before tanks even existed in this game.

~3,300 hours across all three modes. 21,672 missions. 44,159 destructions. Several thousand euros over fifteen years — not impulsively, but because I believed in it.

I’m not rage-quitting after a bad session. I didn’t discover this problem last week. And I’m not here to whine. I’m here to lay out facts.

What ThunderSkill says about me — and the paradox it reveals

According to ThunderSkill (data Sept 2018 → Jan 2024, 13,000+ RB battles, 3,600+ SB battles):

  • Realistic Battles: efficiency 69.44% — “Good player” — win rate 51.22%
  • Simulator Battles: efficiency 80.56% — “Good player” — win rate 38.08%

Read those two numbers together.

In Simulator Battles, I am in the top tier of players by individual efficiency. I kill. I average 5 minutes per life. And yet I lose 6 games out of 10.

This is not a skill problem. My efficiency proves that.

This is a structural team imbalance problem.

People often assume SB players are masochists. Actually, I play SB precisely because it’s relatively less frustrating than RB. No third-person view means less arcade reflex spam. Players tend to think more, communicate more, play as a team. The human element is better. Which makes the structural imbalance even more painful — the mode I enjoy most for its community is the one where the win rate gap is most visible.

One essential point before the numbers — I play Simulator Battles

This mode has a key difference: matchmaking is not based on individual BR like in RB. It uses predefined vehicle setups — curated lists that rotate. Setup 11_2 groups all top-tier vehicles (BR 11.0+), setup 9_2 groups BR 9.0-10.3, etc.

The comparisons below are setup vs setup — apples vs apples. Not a BR 7.0 tank compared to a BR 11.7 tank. The vehicles I compare face each other in the same lobbies, the same evening, on the same EU servers.

What I’m facing tonight — June 16 2026, setup 11_2

I open the Ground Simulator Battles top tier lobby. Here is what I see:

Red side (Russia + China): T-80BVM · T-72B3 “Arena” (new — with hard-kill APS) · BMPT · BMPT-72 · Pantsir-S1

Blue side (my team — all NATO + Israel + Japan): Challenger 2 (2F) · Challenger 3 TD · CV 90 Mk.IV · Leopard 2A7V · M1A2 SEP V2

This is not a screenshot from 2021. This is tonight.

Setup 11_2 — my stats in this exact lobby

My Russian vehicles in 11_2:

Vehicle battle SB Win Rate
T-90M 107 64%
T-80BVM 71 70%
2S25M 94 57%
T-72B3 53 55%
Pantsir-S1 32 56%
Average ~63%

My NATO vehicles in the same setup 11_2:

Vehicle battle SB Win Rate
Leclerc AZUR 236 43%
Leclerc SXXI 180 43%
EBRC Jaguar 119 39%
Leclerc S2 75 43%
Challenger 3 TD 53 32%
CV 90 Mk.IV 33 24%
Challenger 2 (2F) 27 19%
Average ~36%

Same setup · Same lobbies · Same EU servers · Same player

Gap: +28 percentage points in Russia’s favour.

And WT Data Project aggregate data (27,253 battles analysed) independently confirms: Russian BR 11.7 shows 64.5% global win rate. This is not a quirk of my profile. It is systemic.

Setup 9_2 — same pattern, different lobby

My Russian vehicles in 9_2:

Vehicle battle SB Win Rate
T-90A 87 69%
T-72AV TURMS-T 102 67%
2S38 (fictional prototype) 166 72%
2S25 95 58%
2S6 73 63%
BMP-3 133 63%
Object 775 35 77%
Mi-24D 128 58%
Average ~59%

My NATO vehicles in the same setup 9_2:

Vehicle battle SB Win Rate
Challenger 2 183 44%
CRV Block 2 110 43%
Strv 121 108 44%
Strf 9040C 141 33%
G-LYNX 107 32%
Centauro I 105 145 43%
VCC-80/60 141 39%
Freccia 140 47%
Dardo 114 38%
Type 74 (G) 109 43%
Average ~42%

Different setup. Same asymmetry.

The deeper problem

In 2020, Gaijin introduced the volumetric system. Noble ambition. Result: a simulation engine so complex it can no longer be honestly balanced. Polygon junction bugs create abnormal armour zones that structurally benefit the best-modelled vehicles — historically Russian vehicles, modelled by a Russian company since 2012.

Fixing this means rebuilding the game. Gaijin won’t do it.

So they patch quietly. Relikt improves patch after patch with no visible changelog.

Here is one example anyone can verify themselves. The M1A2 SEP V2 — the top-tier American tank — has no depleted uranium (DU) inserts in its hull armour in-game. Yet public documents from the US Department of Defense, available on the Defense Technical Information Center, confirm their presence on M1A2, SEP and SEP V2 variants. Dozens of bug reports were submitted, backed by declassified official sources. All closed. Gaijin published an official devblog to justify the rejection — describing the sources as “unreliable.”

Meanwhile, open the game’s official X-ray viewer on the T-90M — the standard Russian top-tier tank, in the game for years. In the composition of its frontal armour, you will read in black and white: “Armor radiation material (10 mm).” Depleted uranium. Modelled. Functional. The T-90M Arena from the Heavy Cavalry pack inherits this same armour — with a hard-kill APS on top, at the same BR as the original T-90M.

I’m not saying this is intentional. I’m saying the result is always the same.

What has changed — and this is where it really hits me

Fifteen years ago, I bought a pack because I loved this game.

Today, events are designed to be exhausting. €70 packs release with every update. This week, Google Gemini watermarks were found in the textures of a pack sold for €70. A free AI. On premium content.

In April 2026, Keofox — former Gaijin Community Manager for 13 years — publicly revealed that Steam review prompts only appeared after your victories. Never after defeats.

This is no longer a game trying to entertain me.

With Heavy Cavalry, I think I’ll gradually step away from top tier. And maybe, little by little, from the game itself. Not by slamming the door. Just by drifting away — the way you drift away from something that no longer respects you.

I no longer feel like a player. I feel like livestock.

What I’m asking

I still play. I’m not calling for a boycott.

I’m asking you one thing, before opening your wallet for the next pack:

Ask yourself the question Gaijin doesn’t want you to ask.

Why are declassified documents proving errors on NATO vehicles systematically rejected, while Russian values quietly increase with each patch?

Why is a simulation system too complex to balance honestly never questioned?

And above all — does this game still respect you?

If you’re from the first wave — playing since 2012, 2013, 2014 — and you feel the same: say it. In your communities, on your forums, to your friends. Not to destroy this game. To make it become what it once was.

[ASTER] Destructeur28 Marshal · Level 100 · ~3,300h · since 2012 ThunderSkill: thunderskill.com/en/stat/Destructeur28

Verifiable sources: in-game Service Record (screenshots available on request) · ThunderSkill (Sept 2018 → Jan 2024) · WT Data Project wt.controlnet.space · Gaijin official forum · Gaijin official devblog « Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams » · Defense Technical Information Center (DoD) · Game World Observer — Keofox article April 2026 · Heavy Cavalry devblog June 2026 · SB 11_2 lobby screenshots June 16 2026 · T-90M X-ray viewer in-game (screenshot available)

10 Likes
2

I hope responses to this forum don’t slander but provide insight

3

This topic might get destroyed, ruined, demolished, shattered, wrecked, devastated, obliterated, annihilated, dismantled, crushed, smashed, damaged, broken, leveled, eradicated, decimated, torn apart, wiped out, disintegrated, spoiled, totaled, battered, ravaged, razed, fractured, fragmented, pulverized, blasted, flattened, wrecked beyond repair, collapsed, extinguished, eliminated, exterminated, nullified, terminated, undone, defeated, overcome, overthrown, uprooted, dismantled, disassembled, mangled, crippled, disabled, crippled beyond use, smashed to pieces, blown apart, broken down, corrupted, impaired, wrecked completely, desolated, laid waste, destroyed utterly, wiped from existence, demolished completely, reduced to rubble, reduced to ruins, crushed completely, obliterated entirely, annihilated utterly, consumed, devastated completely, ravaged thoroughly, demolished beyond recognition, shattered completely, smashed beyond repair, ruined utterly, decimated severely, extinguished entirely, eradicated completely, rooted out, stamped out, liquidated, neutralized, defeated utterly, conquered, overwhelmed, overpowered, vanquished, crushed decisively, brought down, brought to ruin, laid low, wrecked totally, dismantled entirely, dismembered, torn down, knocked down, broken apart, splintered, burst apart, wrecked irreparably, beyond salvage, beyond recovery, beyond repair, gone, lost, finished, done for, kaput, destroyed beyond recognition, wiped off the map, reduced to dust, reduced to ashes, wiped clean, obliterated from existence, erased, expunged, extinguished, dissolved, disassembled completely, obliterated beyond recovery, ruined beyond redemption, laid in ruins, brought to destruction, demolished utterly, devastated beyond repair, ravaged beyond recovery, reduced to nothing, turned to rubble, turned to ruins, broken beyond use, crushed into fragments, shattered into pieces, blown to bits, blasted to pieces, torn to shreds.

1 Like
4

“I’ve been playing the game since […]” so? Unrelated to the topic, does it give you authority in a subject, it’s not the first time I’m reading a post with this segment and I doubt it will be the last. War Thunder is a team-based game (in technical terms), winrate is result of the entire teams’ performance, not yours, so most of the time this is useless to determine someone’s individual skill. While winrate is determined mainly by the team skill, in ground simulator battles the history can be distorced by first spawn airplanes with full air support capabilities and some for the vehicles—ground simulator battles 1_1, 2_1, 6_1 and 8_2 tells a similar story.

Sources may vary so I don’t think that Gaijin is intentionally favouring Soviet Union, although Gaijin recent actions, I have my doubts of Russian bias if you’re emplying it exists but can’t disagree that top tier is a disgreace (which is why I stopped playing it for the most part—1. Is boring, no truly new content for ground outside the upcoming swarm of active protection system, 2. It doesn’t require much knowledge, or there are much challenge compared to lower battle ratings) and the game itself is being designed to be miserable as we’re seeing, the Gemini occurrance was unexpected for me. I do still play War Thunder but it’s not the same as before, I think is more than obvious that this game can be improved but it’s crystal clear that Gaijin is not willing or are doing a very slow job.

5

You raise fair points. Win rate alone is indeed a team metric — which is exactly why I pair it with my ThunderSkill individual efficiency (80.56% in SB). High individual performance, consistently lower win rate on NATO vehicles across two different setups. That pattern, reproduced across hundreds of battles, is what I’m pointing to — not a single bad session.

On first-spawn aircraft distorting SB: valid concern for some setups. In 11_2 specifically, the Pantsir set (old and new) as well as the BUKM3 on the red side effectively counters that advantage.

And yes — we seem to agree on the essential: top tier is a disgrace, and Gaijin’s pace of improvement is the real problem.

4 Likes
6

Lmao
This is not uranium, it is a typo in the name of the anti-radiation liner.

7

I think that the main thing is the fact that you’re mostly playing Sim, and that in sim you can first spawn CAS.

Among really high tier play Russian tanks are seen as subpar due to the long reloads and lack of maneuverability, but Russian CAS is by far some of the best in the game.

I’d assume the ability to first spawn CAS is bolstering the winrates of Russian tanks in sim, especially at top tier, which you’ve seemed to focus on .

8

That’s a fair correction worth investigating. If ‘Armor radiation material’ refers to the anti-radiation liner rather than depleted uranium armor, I’ll stand corrected on that specific point. The core argument however remains: NATO vehicles’ bug reports backed by declassified DoD documents are systematically rejected, while the win rate gap across two separate setups — documented from my own service record — stands regardless of this single data point.

9

That’s a legitimate point and probably part of the equation. Russian CAS at top tier — Su-25SM3, Su-34, Su-39 with precision-guided munitions — is indeed strong in SB.

However, two things complicate the ‘first spawn CAS explains everything’ argument:

1. The same logic applies to NATO: F-15E, Typhoon, Rafale, Tornado GR.4 are all in the 11_2 blue side lineup. The CAS pool on both sides is deep.

2. The red side has both strong CAS AND the Pantsir couple + BUK-M3 to deny NATO’s air response. The asymmetry is that Russia benefits from both sides of that equation simultaneously — offensive CAS and the best SPAA in the game to neutralize the opponent’s.

That said — you may be right that first-spawn CAS inflates Russian win rates in SB specifically. If so, that’s still a Gaijin balance problem, just a different one than pure ground vehicle modelling.

10

It most definitely does.

If you look at RB stats instead of SB stats (Larger player population + No first spawn CAS) Russian tanks are pretty middle of the road, with the Buk-M3 being one of the worse AA options at top tier (Not saying that it’s bad, but the stats put it below things like the IRIST.)

RU tanks:

image
image

NATO Tanks:
image

image
image1130×601 112 KB

image
image1165×595 115 KB

image
image

We see very similar winrates in both NATO and RU tanks. The only ones which perform worse are the M1A2s, with the exception of the M1A2T, which is likely caused by playerbase.

I still wholeheartedly believe that first spawn CAS is the reason RU winrates are so high in Sim.
If Gaijin fixed GSB by making it so you needed several kills before spawning in CAS like in GRB, The winrates would likely even out.

2 Likes
11

That’s a legitimate point and probably part of the equation. Russian CAS at top tier — Su-25SM3, Su-34, Su-39 with precision-guided munitions — is indeed strong in SB.

This is the most compelling counter-argument in this thread, and I think you’re largely right.

If RB stats show parity at top tier — and your data suggests they do — then the 27-point gap I observe in SB is likely driven primarily by first-spawn CAS asymmetry rather than ground vehicle modelling alone. That’s a meaningful distinction I should have been more careful about in my original post.

Where I’d push back slightly: the asymmetry isn’t just CAS quality, it’s CAS + Pantsir combo + BUK-M3 simultaneously. NATO first-spawn aircraft face better SPAA than Russian aircraft do. But you’re right that this is a GSB ruleset problem more than a pure vehicle balance problem.

And this confirms what I’ve observed: the Mi-28NM with LMUR missiles — fire and forget, and soon with the update launched from behind cover — and the Kh-38MT make Russian first-spawn CAS qualitatively different from NATO’s. It’s not just that Russia has good CAS. It’s that their CAS operates with near impunity behind terrain while the Pantsir and BUK-M3 deny NATO’s air response.

The Brimstone is a perfect illustration of the other side of this coin: a NATO missile with documented fire-and-forget, multi-target radar capability — yet Gaijin chose not to implement its mmW seeker, reducing it to a basic laser-guided missile. Meanwhile the Kh-38MT retains its full capabilities in-game. Same asymmetric pattern, different domain.

Your proposed fix — requiring kills before CAS spawns, like GRB — is the logical solution. Whether Gaijin implements it is another question entirely.

I’ll update my post to reflect this nuance. Thanks for the data.

I should also add from personal experience: in matches where CAS is absent or when a coordinated SPAA team effectively denies the airspace, the advantage becomes much more nuanced. I’ve had games where ground parity felt real. Which actually supports your point — the imbalance I’ve documented is likely more a GSB ruleset problem than a fundamental vehicle modelling issue. That’s an important distinction and I’ll reflect it in the updated post.

12

Is this your first day here lol